Talk:Conservapedia/Archive3

Why are you still lying in the beginning of this article and.....

I said in the archived statements that RationalWiki is blatently lying in the very beginning of the article and asked why I should believe the rest of the article. The article currently states in the first sentence: "Conservapedia is the latest manifestation of the ongoing attempt of the American fundamentalist Christian right to portray liberals, atheists, Muslims, and homosexuals as being unholy and anti-American." Now here is the Conservapedia article on homosexuality: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality Nowhere does the article state that homosexuals are anti-American! The article does say that homosexuals who repent can be reconciled to God but it does not state that homosexuals are anti-American.[1] The article does cite many studies and sources stating that homosexual couples have more domestic violence but it does not state that homosexuals are anti-American.[2] So why do you insist on lying? Why? Newton 18:52, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Pot, meet kettle. --_transResident Transfan^form! 18:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Let him have his say, thats why he is here. But DNFT. tmtoulouse ^persecute 18:55, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

DNFT? --_transResident Transfan^form! 18:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Do Not Feed the Troll. tmtoulouse ^persecute 18:57, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, you are engaging in a diversionary tactic above. Unable to show that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are anti-American you try the diversionary tactic of calling me a troll. Guess what? Your tactic is not working. Newton 19:02, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, Newton. Name a homosexual who is also a "good American". GO! CЯacke® 19:04, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Zen teachers train their young pupils to express themselves. Two Zen temples each had a child protégé. One child, going to obtain vegetables each morning, would meet the other on the way.

"Where are you going?" asked the one.

"I am going wherever my feet go," the other responded.

This reply puzzled the first child who went to his teacher for help. "Tomorrow morning," the teacher told him, "when you meet that little fellow, ask him the same question. He will give you the same answer, and then you ask him: 'Suppose you have no feet, then where are you going?' That will fix him."

The children met again the following morning.

"Where are you going?" asked the first child.

"I am going wherever the wind blows," answered the other.

This again nonplussed the youngster, who took his defeat to the teacher.

Ask him where he is going if there is no wind," suggested the teacher.

The next day the children met a third time.

"Where are you going?" asked the first child.

"I am going to the market to buy vegetables," the other replied.

Cracker, I see you are unable to show that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are anti-American. Don't think I didn't notice. I did and if I noticed, I am sure others are noticing too.Newton 19:14, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Interestingly, this article does not claim that CP states that homosexuals are un-American. It rather says that CP portrays homosexuals as un-American. There is a large difference between a statement and a portrayal. By the way, you overestimate our web traffic.--MountainTiger 19:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Daiju visited the master Baso in China. Baso asked: "What do you seek?"

"Enlightenment," replied Daiju.

"You have your own treasure house. Why do you search outside?" Baso asked.

Daiju inquired: "Where is my treasure house?"

Baso answered: "What you are asking is your treasure house."

Daiju was enlightened! Ever after he urged his friends: "Open your own tresure house and use those treasures."

Nice that Trent posted on his talk page he had no fear of being banned here! Typical liberal deceit! LMAO

I see the one lie has been removed from the first sentence finally, however.....

I see the one lie has been removed from the first sentence finally, however where is the support given for the first sentence in the article? The first sentence lacks citations and its contentions are not supported elsewhere in the article. Newton 19:43, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I see the first sentence has yet again been changed but it is still not cited or supported in the rest of the article. Is the first sentence of the article still lying? If not, why not? Please do not give vague rationalizations. Thank you. Newton 19:47, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I am feeling sorry for you, I told you if you didn't stop beating the same drum we would get bored. Come back to this later, pick another article, I really encourage you too look at the one i allready linked. Debate that for a while, and we will respond, then come back here after a few days. But you cant really expect to get very far if you only focus on one issue. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:58, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

By the way, copy of what I posted in reply to Kendoll at the Column: "So, anyway, I skimmed the CP article on homosexuality, and did not see a header titled "anti-American". Just enough general gay bashing piled on to make it obvious what CP "thinks" of the issue. By the way, since CP "waves the flag" over every article, anything they dislike can be construed as being called "anti-American"." human^{be in} 20:05, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

We could remove the whole first sentence. It's not our best writing, which our flagship article should try to employ wherever possible. Would I be authorized to rewrite the first paragraph?-αmεσ (!) 12:26, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Anyone is welcome to do anything at any time, even Newton, but so is everyone else. So feel free to do any improvement you want and others can accept, alter or reject, thats how the mob works! tmtoulouse ^persecute 12:41, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Please look what I did, I think/hope it's better. I rewrote it a bit, split it into two paragraphs, and added notes to "evil" and "anti-American" explaining the assertions. human^{be in} 13:23, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

So....

How 'bout them Yankees?CЯacke® 19:50, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Is it baseball season again? tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:51, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Go Red Sox!--MountainTiger 19:51, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Whats the name of the toronto team? tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:52, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The Maple leafs? Leaves? Chicago?CЯacke®

Hell if I know, but I guess I go for them since I like live near them. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the Yankees are interesting. Saw one of their games once. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:38, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I like pie! --Gulik@work

Me like pie too. I watched "world series" '04, with mamy ladies, er, friends. Long time ago... human^{be in} 00:23, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I like pie! --Gulik@work

Me like pie too. I watched "world series" '04, with mamy ladies, er, friends. Long time ago... human^{be in}

Was that a wiki burp? Or a copy/paste error? I think Toronto are the Blue Jays. Maple Leafs ice hockey? human^{be in} 20:08, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Maple Leafs are hockey yes, and yes, they suck. --Kels 20:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

At least they're better than the Expos ... oh wait :-P Jrssr5 13:12, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, better than the Expos aint too hard, but I respectfully disagree--the Leafs do not suck--they are just unlucky. 64.122.82.126 13:14, 9 August 2007 (CDT) sorry, forgot to sign in ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-)

forty years between Stanley Cups is a lot of unlucky. Face it, Leaf Fan - you're backing a loser.PFoster 13:20, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia Down?

I tried following a link there, and got an "object not found" error. Hm.... --(Gulik@work) 67.102.192.7 18:54, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

What link? Maybe the article in question was removed? CP works for me here. If in doubt, check with a proxy... or just refresh, might've been a temporary fluke. --Sid 19:13, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm. No, it seems down to me too, I haven't been able to get to it for an hour or so. Doggedpersistance 19:18, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I just accessed the main page twice. Sure, it's even more constipated than usual, but it loads fine. Now I have to go wash off my browser... human^{be in} 19:29, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Something odd is going on, its up someplaces and down others check out this. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

And I can't ping it from my IP, can ping it from some proxies but not all proxies. Its random enough I am willing to attribute it to a technical glitch and not a decision to start blocking access all together. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:33, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Eh, it's only Florida, New York, Paris, Munchnic and, um, China, that don't work. No big deal... human^{be in} 20:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Quite interesting. If I had to guess, I'd say it's some slip-up with the DNS or something. I've occasionally been unable to reach certain sites while others had no problems. Either that, or CP completely banned several major cities and/or states... an unlikely, yet amusing thought. ;) --Sid 20:16, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

When I couldn't reach it, the front page asked for a password and mentioned a router. I'm guessing their ISP had some sort of problem. --Gulik 13:12, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Andy's courses

Has anyone from RW signed up for Andy's government course? I think it'd be useful to have a mole there to see what's going on, as it's closed to non-participants, I believe. I'm not volunteering or anything, but I'm sure it'd make for some great screenshots for the best of CP page. You know how crazies get even more crazy when they think only their own are listening (think Trent Lott at Strom's birthday, or compare someone like Karl Rove at a Republican event vs. at the Aspen Institute Ideas festival)? Well think of an even more crazy CP, if that's even possible. I would just hope RobS and Karajou somehow get some input into these courses, for some true what-the-fuck?-ness. DickTurpis 16:00, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

NavigatingCP

For teh first time in ages I looked at cp's main page. Am I wrong or is there something missing - no Table of Contents - or is there somewhere? It appears that you've only the search box or "news" or AS's "courses" direct from p1. Tell me I'm wrong, please. (Just tried "index" aaargh!) Keep^{Me informed} 19:10, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

You want more fun? Try to find all their "simple" rules... Maybe you shoudl write them some "help" files (j/k)! human^{be in} 19:14, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

[Under construction]

"Conservapedia claims 16 differences with Wikipedia[24] that they assert make it far superior"

Uh, isn't this already an article or series of them? This page looked pretty good before, can we at least do our contruction efforts here in talk or in sandboxes, rather than "live" on an article that is on the first page of results when you Google conservapedia. human^{be in} 19:24, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I see you are still lying about Conservapedia stating that homosexuals are anti-american

Your article still states that that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are aniti-American. You attempt to justify your lie by stating in a footnote: "As a self-proclaimed pro-American site, anything they "don't like" is by default, "anti-American" - in fact, since they fly the U.S. flag over every article in their logo, it can be derived by simple logic that anything Conservapedia criticizes is anti-American." Of course, while Andy Schafly states that Wikipedia is anti-American in some of its content, nowehere does he say that everything that Conservapedians don't like is ant-American and you are stretching quite far to attempt to cover your untruthfulness. Lastly, I wrote most of the homosexuality article and more than anyone else at Conservapedia I have asked for the logo of Conservapedia to be a globe rather than an American flag so your attempt at an argument again shows itself to be false. Newton 13:56, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

We wouldn't expect you to understand the concept of synthesis. Its okay though, you have, uh other strengths. tmtoulouse ^persecute 14:24, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Of course, since "your" article has been locked for five months, one might expect you to have a monopoly on the "truth." It seems a bit deceitful that you "allow" the public to edit "your" article, but not really. Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 14:31, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me rephrase: Your site still states that that Wikipedia is anti-conservative. You attempt to justify your lie by citing poor evidence.[3]. Of course, while Andy Schafly states that Wikipedia is anti-conservative in some of its content, he doesn't provide any reliable, justifiable or logical arguments to support it, especially since Wikipedia is not one "borg editor." Nowhere does Wikipedia say it is anti-conservative or pro-liberal, and you are stretching quite far to attempt to cover your untruthfulness. Lastly, no editor has a stanglehold on any article in Wikipedia. Your unwillingness to let people who do not share your point-of-view edit certain articles on Conservapedia is questionable ethically, and shows that Conservapedia is not interested in engaging the general public. Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 16:50, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm

I was told to check out this site after someone saw me get into a discussion at Conservapedia, which you can find here. I was actually surprised when I was banned, because I figured that most people who got banned there were banned because they became incivil in response to the incivility shown by their staff, for which only the non-staff member is banned, of course. I read some of the article here about them (and your about page,) and while I agree with some things, I dispute the idea that it their behavior has anything to do with them being rightwing, traditionalist, or etc. In fact, I think this allegation will further the cycle they furthered themselves.

I am a conservative Christian myself, and as I noted over there, actually got a more "conservative" score on my political compass than some in their staff, at "Economic Left/Right: 5.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.59." This didnt stop them from attacking me - and using almost all the tactics they labeled "liberal style" themselves. I wrote a blog entry recently on why Conservapedia doesnt work, which came down to three basic reasons. The first is that an encyclopedia is meant to provide facts, from which you can determine your own point of view. Conservapedia aims to give you a predetermined point of view, selectively providing facts which work to enforce it. While not encyclopedic, this could perhaps be useful - but Conservapedia also fails in this regard as they have no consistent definition of what the "conservative viewpoint" is. Instead, their articles vary - sometimes its a republican party viewpoint, other times its more "paleoconservative," meaning it doesnt really present a consistent viewpoint, as certainly not all conservatives agree on everything. But beyond these two reasons, which make it useless as a product, the third fault is that it furthers the very problems it calls "liberal bias" by not providing an environment which allows for a free transfer of ideas. Through personal attacks, bullying, and blocks, they dont allow discussion to occur, or put severe impediments on it. The problems they complain about obviously arent liberal traits, but they arent conservative traits as this article seems to say, either. They are unfortunate traits which exist in human nature. Its devoid of politics, yet this article inaccurately paints them as conservative traits, just as inaccurately as Conservapedia paints the opposite.

From some of the other content on pages, I know that some of pages here are sort of satirical, but I dont really know if this page is another example of that satire, or if its meant to be taken seriously, due to the similarity of the about page of this site. Do you guys really think that this sort of incivility is unique to a particular political leaning or beleif system? Rangeley 20:54, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Nope, but you've got to admit that Conservapedia's raised all the methods of authoritarian Information Abuse to art forms. And if there's a "Liberalpedia" that's as obnoxious in the equal and opposite direction, I've yet to hear about it. (Yes, I know there's a Liberalpedia, but I keep hearing it's more lame than stalinist.) And Conservapedia deserves every beating it gets purely for their astounding degree of hypocrisy. --Gulik 21:05, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

No I do not think that its unique to conservatives, there is plenty of it on the left too. A lot of the medical woo and food woo stuff that we talk about here comes from the left and their attacks are just as vicious and just as focused on bullying as anything at CP. I think you raise some good points, we need to figure out what aspects of the way CP is run is do to their world view, and what exactly that world view is. Your points are worth contemplating. tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:09, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

John Pilger, and the whole genocide-denying crowd, are other lefties who should be shunned. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Could I ask for some examples where you think we cross the line from saying conservapedia and it management does "x" to saying that because conservapedia does "x" that means its a conservative trait? tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:15, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

"Their attacks on these groups are fueled by traditionalism and jingoistic pro-Americanism" is one example, the Conservapedia#Philosophical_Stance seems give credence to Conservapedia's inaccurate claim that it represents the "American Conservative Christian point of view," and certain aspects of the article also seem to turn it into a conservative-liberal issue, with things like "Liberal revulsion" being mentioned to the article, whereas the opening sentence states "Conservapedia is the latest public manifestation of how the American fundamentalist Christian right "thinks."" These arent as blatent as saying xyz is a trait of conservatism, but they carry the same implication. Rangeley 21:39, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Meh, I just say that if we stick an 'an' before all of these things, this problem will go away. It doesn't go for compelling reading, but it's more intellectually honest. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I've spent the last 5 or so years hearing people scream that anyone who doesn't believe everything the Republicans say is a filthy terrorist-loving traitor who hates Jeezus and Freedom. If the Right-wing in this country appears to be made entirely of lunatics right now, it's because they've thrown out or shouted down all the sane ones...like what happened to you. No, the Conservatives don't have a monopoly on Crazy, but they managed to lay in a mighty impressive stockpile of it after 9/11, and I suspect it won't be used up 'til after 11/4/08. --Gulik 21:22, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

That sort of "rhetoric" is common on all sides. After election 2000, and especially election 2004, it would be common to hear in school that Bush and all his supporters were bigots, or that he was stupid, or that Republicans are nazis, etc. More liberal areas have more people like that, more conservative areas have more people like you described. I suspect that the reason you never really hear it coming from both sides in any one place is that the minority view, after being exposed to the ridiculousness of the majority view, has more of an incentive to take the political debate to a more intellectual level and away from stupidity. The majority view in schools probably wont be challenged as much, and therefore has little reason to advance beyond the childish levels its at. Its the same reason that sites like Conservapedia do not work - rather than try and bring it to another level, they just ban people who challenge their thinking. I have been to Che-Lives before, which is essentially a Marxist theory site, and they have a practice of putting non-communists into their own user group which can only post in a "non communist" area, and other forums which harass dissenters through ad hominem attacks rather than debate them. You tend not to see "crazies" in open forums, as that either provides a challenge they are unwilling to face, or they were willing to face it and their arguments matured and advanced out of necessity, in which case they wouldnt be crazies anymore. And certainly the crazies havent driven me out of conservatism, just their crazy site. Rangeley 21:53, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm really glad you're willing to engage us here. It would be great if more intelligent, rational conservative voices were interested in RW. I'm sure that plenty of folks who happen to be conservative christians have things to contribute and things to dislike here. The site isn't meant to please everybody, certainly. We do seem to try to maintain a viewpoint of anti-authoritarianism and skepticism, and even anti-religiosity (if not outright anti-religion), however I think the conversations here are better served by broader viewpoints. Unfortunately most of the conservatives we have attracted to far are conspiracy theorists, and conspiracy theories are a set of beliefs that we try to debunk.--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 22:06, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Then too, is the fact that since they won't define conservative or conservatism (it ain't Goldwater's or even Reagan's conservatism) one has to hunt around the edges to see where it leaves off.

They also spend a great deal of time discussing what they're against and practically no time showing what they're FOR. Possible exceptions are school prayer (hey the Dust Bowl days woulda probably been a LOT worse if school kids around the country weren't mindlessly mumbling through rote learned "prayers") and homeschooling (the owner of the site is a homeskewlin' magnate. Just think, if everybody homeschooled then we could group the classes according to age and experience and centrally locate the "homeschool" so they'd be convenient to get to...public schools, but with prayers).

These people are infofascists, they determine what is the truth and ONLY that "truth" will live on their pages. They could win...if global warming both raises the sea levels while simultaneously lowering IQ's we're all fukt. MOO CЯacke® 22:20, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I think Rangeley has a lot of good points, particularly with the idea of "the more friends surrounding you, the more outrageous rhetoric you're likely to spout." I think that one major reason that CP exists at all is just that the Powerz over there want a place to vent, and they can't do that as well at CreationWiki and other more mainstream conservative sites. The fact that they call it an "encyclopedia" is only an attempt to give themselves legitimacy--North Korea still calls itself a "Democratic People's Republic". In reality, as I and many of us here learned, they're not looking to educate as much as indoctrinate Andy Schlafly's unique brand of ideas, so of course they're not going to stick to the facts. We all know this. Nevertheless, their "encyclopedic" claims are still pretty irritating; if they called themselves "Captain Schlafly's SuperWiki," people probably wouldn't be as insistent on debunking them (at least I don't think I personally would)--you can find all kinds of crazy right-wing sites that aren't as fascinating as CP.

That said, I think RW does have to be careful about falling into a similar trap--it's tempting to paint all of conservatism with the CP brush, but not all conservatives think like those guys. I think that a lot of the more aggressive anti-CP writing here (including some of my own) seems to be a reaction to frustration with CP or its sysops, probably related to experiences there. I know that there's been an effort to wean RW off of the cocaine that is CP, and I think as time goes on that will be more and more true, because I have faith that there's more to this place than the CP siren song. Even so, I think CP remains a juicy target for refutation because 1.)There's so much there that begs to be refuted, 2.)it claims to be an intellectual bastion and yet tolerates, even supports, blatant factual relativism, errors, and plagiarism, in addition to its far-right politics, 3.)It's a wiki, designed for lots of people to use, so you might actually be able to change someone's mind. </rant>--Bayes^infer 21:59, 3 September 2007 (CDT) <--off to take down a CP 8-ball

Thank You

Probably not the best place to put this, but I just wanted to show my gratitude that I found this place. After exploring Conservapedia for a little while, I had begun to loose what faith I had left in the human race. Especially after I was banned from CP following my proposal that they edit their introduction to their Communism article to simply mention Marx/Engels. I'm still saddened that one of their sysops would be so deluded that he would call that evidence that I was a "denier of Communist genocide"

Anyway, Very cool site. I'm glad to be here.--Zelandoni 00:27, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

We're glad you're here - which sysop was, it, perchance? Could it have been that master of rhetoric ... Ed Poor? Also, it's particularly ironic because Andy Schlafly denies the Bosnian genocide 'because the Serbs were Christians'. Interestingly enough, that puts him in with the nutty division hard-left in the UK, and other places - Pinter, Pilger, etc. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Don't worry, you tend to get a bad taste in your mouth after debating with some of those people. Contribute anything remotely impartial or intelligent and you get lambasted for been a 'commie' or 'fag' or 'Liberal'.

I'm still not convinced that conservapedia is some kind of intricate parody masterminded by Liberals! It sure feels that way. The Anti-Conservapedia 07:40, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

It was actually RobS, And I also found myself wondering if it was a parody. It seems impossible that a group of people that large could be so foolish.--Zelandoni 11:50, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

You must be new to this whole "Human Race" thingie. In my experience the principle of Groupthink guarantees that the bigger the group, the dumber it acts en masse. --Gulik 12:15, 3 September 2007 (CDT)